Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: the exact return contents (ending adjusted basis, every worksheet line value, §731 gain, §704(d) suspended losses) and the federal-only scope with no state basis adjustments. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or validation behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core content is front-loaded and useful, but the multi-year limitation is stated twice — once in 'Don't use for' and again in 'Limitations'. The closing marketing lines (two lucasandersen.ai URLs plus a positional-disclosure bio) do not help an agent invoke the tool correctly and dilute an otherwise tight definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so: it enumerates the return payload (§731 gain, §704(d) carryforward, line values) and states the federal-only and single-year boundaries. What remains unaddressed is the semantic role of units and tax_bracket, which an agent must infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and the description reinforces the key box mappings (Box 1, Box 19A, Box 5, Box 11, Box 13W) while translating 'Item K liability change' into the §752(a)/(b) increase/decrease parameters. It adds the regulatory framing (§704(d), §731(a)(1)) that makes those inputs meaningful, though it says nothing about the undocumented units or tax_bracket parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Computes adjusted partner basis from a single year of Schedule K-1 data' — and anchors it to a named methodology (IRS Partner's Basis Worksheet, Lines 1-14) with the governing code sections. It explicitly scopes itself as single-year/single-lot, which is exactly what distinguishes it from the k1_basis_multi_year sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Has explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use for' sections. It names concrete qualifying instruments (EPD, ET, MPLX, WES, PAA, NRP, USAC, SUN) and the required input shape, then names the alternatives: 1099-DIV ETFs are out of scope, multi-year carryforward goes to k1_basis_multi_year, and non-publicly-traded general partnerships are excluded on §1402 grounds.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.